6 ms·

Think I realised a while ago that nothing predicts success. That's not to say that success is only luck, it has requirements, but not predictors. Hard work, gri

Think I realised a while ago that nothing predicts success. That's not to say that success is only luck, it has requirements, but not predictors. Hard work, grit, skill, luck, privilege etc are all required in combinations that result in a baseline sum, but nothing will predict success. Success is almost by definition a hindsight measure. You can only work backwards from it, but never guarantee a forward path into it.

WalterBright 6y ago
> I realised a while ago that nothing predicts success ... never guarantee a forward path into it Guarantee, no. Anyone could be hit by a bus tomorrow. But it is clear that one can greatly increase their odds of success. For example, learning a job skill. Learning how to manage money. Living below your means. Associate with successful people instead of losers. Ditching the victim mentality. One can also greatly decrease odds of success by, say, dropping out, playing video games all day, hittin' the crack pipe, etc., and adopting the victim mentality.
- jka 6y ago
  I think what you're saying is that you and your peers have a shared definition of success, and within that, there are well-known ways to improve the likelihood of reaching that goal. Certainly having goals (particularly ones that retain a healthy, well-rounded lifestyle) can help people avoid negative outcomes.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Anyone can use their own definition of success. Then develop a plan to get there, and execute the plan.
  - hurril 6y ago
    I think you're being a little bit weasly here. They do have a shared definition of success and you are part of that, as am I. The definition does not have to be identical to be useful.
    - jka 6y ago
      That's fair, I think I was being, yep (in order to try to pick apart and perhaps critique what are widely agreed as successful achievements).
      - hurril 6y ago
        And you have a point there. Certainly people have different concrete definitions (and wishes) for success. I'm not your average struggle porn/ you can also be successful-morons :)
- cpursley 6y ago
  Unless you're the son of a US president.
  - dmpk2k 6y ago
    Probabilities. Outliers.
  - gumby 6y ago
    Perfect example: few people bother to do anything to make this happen, so is it any wonder they don’t reap the benefit?
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    you probably can't become destitute and homeless if you're the son of a US president, but you can certainly squander your well above average chance of also becoming president.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
talliedthoughts 6y ago
Not only a hindsight measure, but also a very individual measure. Society usually defines success as some combination of wealth and fame, but everyone can choose another definition of success for themselves. Say someone defines success for themselves as "becoming the number 1 basketball player in the world", then gets into the top 10 and becomes rich and famous because of it. They might internally consider themselves a failure, even though they are very successful in the eyes of everyone else.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
papito 6y ago
Nothing is guaranteed in life. Working towards something just tips the scale of luck in your favor. Luck is still a factor, it's just a matter of minimizing it. Some people work their asses off starting a company, and it never takes off, and some dude who barely knows how to program runs into someone at a party and gets hired for a million dollars to build a dumb website.
- ksec 6y ago
  I agree. Except you cant say that in Jobs Interview. Nor does mainstream media wants to acknowledge this.
  - pdimitar 6y ago
    True. That's why critical thinking that's freed from what's popularly believed is such a crucially important skill to have.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  > Some people work their asses off starting a company, and it never takes off, and some dude who barely knows how to program runs into someone at a party and gets hired for a million dollars to build a dumb website. This should be written somewhere with huge letters and be the final end of that otherwise endless discussion. People in HN are really baffling to me in how they underplay luck and overplay effort all the time. And I've seen what you said, on both extremes, like 50 times in my life so far at least.
  - arvinsim 6y ago
    It hurts the ego to admit one’s personal success is due to luck and not by effort.
    - pdimitar 6y ago
      Yep, more or less. There's also this phenomena (that I have no doubt has a name in Wikipedia but I don't know it) that leads to our brain conflating "I made it! I made money!" with "I am super good at EVERYTHING!". I don't why that is. A lot of us know that the ego is our brain's top priority but nobody really knows why is that the case. This also leads to rich people producing various misguided essays in which they are asserting stuff that's way outside their area of expertise -- but since they are rich and popular, many people gulp them as a holy gospel and repeat them ad infinitum... Eventually we go full circle and start seeing what is the topic of the OP: that there are a lot of widely believed adages without them ever being well-supported by any evidence.
shoto_io 6y ago
Yes, agree. But... :) It also depends on “step size”. So if you define success very incrementally you can about it almost scientifically and do “test and learn”. On a large scale I agree with you, it’s pretty impossible to draw a clear line.
jasode 6y ago
>Think I realised a while ago that nothing _predicts_ success. I understand what you're trying to say but as fyi... you're using "predict" in colloquial terms which is very different from math statistics where "predictor variable" is a term-of-art: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22statistics%22+%22predictor+variable%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22statistics%22+%22predicto... (a) term-of-art statistics example: the X independent variable represents low to high blood alcohol level which is a predictor for car crashes (represented by Y). A high blood alcohol of 0.20% is a better predictor of drivers causing car crashes than the amount of salt eaten in a meal. (b) colloquial usage: Nothing "predicts" car crashes because my uncle Jim drank a whole bottle of vodka and didn't hit anybody when driving home -- while a Tesla self-driving car with no blood alcohol at all crashed into a tree! Predictions about car crashes are bogus. Different usage of (a) and (b) is example of equivocation fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation Another way to look at it: (a) is often about aggregates and groups (aka statistics) but (b) is about personal anecdotes or obersvations where n=1. This means they will disagree because they're talking about different things. EDIT reply to : >Well, it's hardly "colloquial" usage, more like conversational, dictionary, typical, etc. I don't what correction you're trying to make here. The top link for https://www.google.com/search?q=colloquial&oq=colloquial https://www.google.com/search?q=colloquial&oq=colloquial ... is : "(of language) used in ordinary or familiar _conversation_; not formal or literary." That matches what you said. >The comment didn't seem like it was grounded in maths/stats terminology. Yes, and that was actually the main point of my comment. This thread's Nautilus article of "predict" refers to research studies which talks talks about statistical predictor variables ("grit" being the X axis independent variable). The gp comment copies the word "predict" in his own comment but uses it in a non-statistical meaning and readers may not be aware of the silent switch in usage. (Equivocation.) E.g. Do SAT test scores "predict" income level? It can be "yes" or "no" depending on which meaning of "predict" one is using.
- austinjp 6y ago
  Well, it's hardly "colloquial" usage, more like conversational, dictionary, typical, etc. The comment didn't seem like it was grounded in maths/stats terminology. I read the comment as being about an individual rather than a population, which illustrates the problem: predicting individual success is (nearly?) impossible even if population data is consulted. Probably due to chaotic processes and the impossibility of understanding all relevant variables, exacerbated by the confusion of correlation with causation i.e. post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.
euske 6y ago
> Success is almost by definition a hindsight measure. The same goes for natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" is always defined retrospectively. You'll never know what is truly advantageous at the moment. The only possible strategy is just to try anything.

WalterBright 6y ago

> I realised a while ago that nothing predicts success ... never guarantee a forward path into it Guarantee, no. Anyone could be hit by a bus tomorrow. But it is clear that one can greatly increase their odds of success. For example, learning a job skill. Learning how to manage money. Living below your means. Associate with successful people instead of losers. Ditching the victim mentality. One can also greatly decrease odds of success by, say, dropping out, playing video games all day, hittin' the crack pipe, etc., and adopting the victim mentality.

jka 6y ago
I think what you're saying is that you and your peers have a shared definition of success, and within that, there are well-known ways to improve the likelihood of reaching that goal. Certainly having goals (particularly ones that retain a healthy, well-rounded lifestyle) can help people avoid negative outcomes.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Anyone can use their own definition of success. Then develop a plan to get there, and execute the plan.
- hurril 6y ago
  I think you're being a little bit weasly here. They do have a shared definition of success and you are part of that, as am I. The definition does not have to be identical to be useful.
  - jka 6y ago
    That's fair, I think I was being, yep (in order to try to pick apart and perhaps critique what are widely agreed as successful achievements).
    - hurril 6y ago
      And you have a point there. Certainly people have different concrete definitions (and wishes) for success. I'm not your average struggle porn/ you can also be successful-morons :)
cpursley 6y ago
Unless you're the son of a US president.
- dmpk2k 6y ago
  Probabilities. Outliers.
- gumby 6y ago
  Perfect example: few people bother to do anything to make this happen, so is it any wonder they don’t reap the benefit?
- leetcrew 6y ago
  you probably can't become destitute and homeless if you're the son of a US president, but you can certainly squander your well above average chance of also becoming president.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

talliedthoughts 6y ago

Not only a hindsight measure, but also a very individual measure. Society usually defines success as some combination of wealth and fame, but everyone can choose another definition of success for themselves. Say someone defines success for themselves as "becoming the number 1 basketball player in the world", then gets into the top 10 and becomes rich and famous because of it. They might internally consider themselves a failure, even though they are very successful in the eyes of everyone else.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

papito 6y ago

Nothing is guaranteed in life. Working towards something just tips the scale of luck in your favor. Luck is still a factor, it's just a matter of minimizing it. Some people work their asses off starting a company, and it never takes off, and some dude who barely knows how to program runs into someone at a party and gets hired for a million dollars to build a dumb website.

ksec 6y ago
I agree. Except you cant say that in Jobs Interview. Nor does mainstream media wants to acknowledge this.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  True. That's why critical thinking that's freed from what's popularly believed is such a crucially important skill to have.
pdimitar 6y ago
> Some people work their asses off starting a company, and it never takes off, and some dude who barely knows how to program runs into someone at a party and gets hired for a million dollars to build a dumb website. This should be written somewhere with huge letters and be the final end of that otherwise endless discussion. People in HN are really baffling to me in how they underplay luck and overplay effort all the time. And I've seen what you said, on both extremes, like 50 times in my life so far at least.
- arvinsim 6y ago
  It hurts the ego to admit one’s personal success is due to luck and not by effort.
  - pdimitar 6y ago
    Yep, more or less. There's also this phenomena (that I have no doubt has a name in Wikipedia but I don't know it) that leads to our brain conflating "I made it! I made money!" with "I am super good at EVERYTHING!". I don't why that is. A lot of us know that the ego is our brain's top priority but nobody really knows why is that the case. This also leads to rich people producing various misguided essays in which they are asserting stuff that's way outside their area of expertise -- but since they are rich and popular, many people gulp them as a holy gospel and repeat them ad infinitum... Eventually we go full circle and start seeing what is the topic of the OP: that there are a lot of widely believed adages without them ever being well-supported by any evidence.

shoto_io 6y ago

Yes, agree. But... :) It also depends on “step size”. So if you define success very incrementally you can about it almost scientifically and do “test and learn”. On a large scale I agree with you, it’s pretty impossible to draw a clear line.

jasode 6y ago

>Think I realised a while ago that nothing _predicts_ success. I understand what you're trying to say but as fyi... you're using "predict" in colloquial terms which is very different from math statistics where "predictor variable" is a term-of-art: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22statistics%22+%22predictor+variable%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22statistics%22+%22predicto... (a) term-of-art statistics example: the X independent variable represents low to high blood alcohol level which is a predictor for car crashes (represented by Y). A high blood alcohol of 0.20% is a better predictor of drivers causing car crashes than the amount of salt eaten in a meal. (b) colloquial usage: Nothing "predicts" car crashes because my uncle Jim drank a whole bottle of vodka and didn't hit anybody when driving home -- while a Tesla self-driving car with no blood alcohol at all crashed into a tree! Predictions about car crashes are bogus. Different usage of (a) and (b) is example of equivocation fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation Another way to look at it: (a) is often about aggregates and groups (aka statistics) but (b) is about personal anecdotes or obersvations where n=1. This means they will disagree because they're talking about different things. EDIT reply to : >Well, it's hardly "colloquial" usage, more like conversational, dictionary, typical, etc. I don't what correction you're trying to make here. The top link for https://www.google.com/search?q=colloquial&oq=colloquial https://www.google.com/search?q=colloquial&oq=colloquial ... is : "(of language) used in ordinary or familiar _conversation_; not formal or literary." That matches what you said. >The comment didn't seem like it was grounded in maths/stats terminology. Yes, and that was actually the main point of my comment. This thread's Nautilus article of "predict" refers to research studies which talks talks about statistical predictor variables ("grit" being the X axis independent variable). The gp comment copies the word "predict" in his own comment but uses it in a non-statistical meaning and readers may not be aware of the silent switch in usage. (Equivocation.) E.g. Do SAT test scores "predict" income level? It can be "yes" or "no" depending on which meaning of "predict" one is using.

austinjp 6y ago
Well, it's hardly "colloquial" usage, more like conversational, dictionary, typical, etc. The comment didn't seem like it was grounded in maths/stats terminology. I read the comment as being about an individual rather than a population, which illustrates the problem: predicting individual success is (nearly?) impossible even if population data is consulted. Probably due to chaotic processes and the impossibility of understanding all relevant variables, exacerbated by the confusion of correlation with causation i.e. post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.

euske 6y ago

> Success is almost by definition a hindsight measure. The same goes for natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" is always defined retrospectively. You'll never know what is truly advantageous at the moment. The only possible strategy is just to try anything.